Health Care: Obama States His Case

To the Editor:

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

Anthony Russo

Re “President Seeks Public’s Support on Health Care” (front page, July 23):

I listened to President Obama’s news conference on the subject of health care for all Americans. I must say it left me with a deep sense of frustration.

We already have a successful federal health care program: Medicare. Even many physicians prefer it over the various programs sold by insurance companies. Why don’t we just gradually lower the age of eligibility until all Americans are covered? Or is that too easy?

Bernard F. Erlanger
New York, July 23, 2009

The writer is emeritus professor of microbiology at Columbia University.

•

To the Editor:

Once again, on reading the various pundits, I feel as if I’m in a looking-glass world.

Did we hear the same news conference? I heard President Obama make a cogent, intelligent argument for fixing a health care system that is very broken; they heard that he did not lie or pander to the American public, which is apparently bad politics. Maybe it is.

More’s the pity.

Michelle Bisson
Tarrytown, N.Y., July 23, 2009

•

To the Editor:

President Obama pointed out in his news conference that every member of Congress has great health insurance, and yet some are resisting making it available to all Americans. Maybe it’s kind of hard to feel the pain of those without it when you have created the best for yourselves.

Nancy Oliveira
San Francisco, July 23, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Re “Real Challenge to Health Bill: Selling Reform” (Economic Scene, front page, July 22):

David Leonhardt says that the “typical person,” one of the 90 percent of voters who already have health insurance, thinks that the Democratic health care plans offer nothing for them except higher taxes.

As one of those 90 percent, I disagree. Beyond thinking that a rich society ought to be able to provide this basic need of life as a matter of course, the main reason to support strong universal health care is personal and family security: removing the weight of vulnerability to misfortune.

This is not just personal: we should not underestimate the corrosive effects of pervasive insecurity on American democracy. The recent trajectory of our society has whole segments seeing an increasingly tenuous hold on a middle-class lifestyle, and health care economic worries are a big part of that. This is a deeply destructive dynamic that bodes poorly for the American project.

Those who can’t conceive of losing their health insurance (which includes members of Congress and most influential political actors, and most of their friends) do not seem to appreciate that widespread personal vulnerability can translate into a caustic political culture.

Avoiding that future concerns me greatly, even though I myself have no worry about my own insurance.

William S. Kessler
Seattle, July 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

“What’s in it for me?” may be asked by healthy people who are covered by health insurance plans — that is, until they become ill. Once serious illness strikes, profit-minded insurance bureaucrats come between patient and doctor; and uncovered bills and expenses mount.

Everyone has a stake in health care reform. He just might not know it yet.

Carol Messineo
Brooklyn, July 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

As David Leonhardt rightly points out, one of the great barriers to health reform is that because most Americans already have health insurance, they don’t see “what’s in it for me.” Consequently, there is considerable resistance to the increased cost that health reform will require.

One possible answer is to include coverage for home- and community-based long-term care services — the kinds of services that help people avoid nursing home placement. This is a huge issue for many elderly Americans and their baby boomer children, two of the most powerful groups of voters.

In fact, a recent poll released by the SCAN Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to improving long-term care, found that almost 8 of 10 Americans (including two-thirds of Republicans) say that if health care reform included coverage for home- and community-based long-term-care services, it would personally benefit them or someone in their families.

The added cost of these services would at least in part be offset by reduced nursing home costs, but more to the point, the vast majority of Americans would clearly be able to see “what’s in it for me.”

Paul Jellinek
Mercerville, N.J., July 22, 2009

The writer is a consultant who works with foundations, including the SCAN Foundation.

•

To the Editor:

According to David Leonhardt, most Americans are satisfied with their present coverage in part because tests and treatments “appear to be free” under the current employer-provided health care system. For many of us this is puzzling. Except for a few fully covered screening tests, my insurance, and that of millions of others, functions with a system of deductibles and co-pays that add up quickly.

A few years back, a simple broken wrist set in the emergency room cost me $700 out of pocket.

While I support health care reform and would even be willing to pay more to cover more folks, I am tired of hearing that I am blithely demanding care I might not need because it is free to me. Usually I weigh the costs I know I will incur when deciding whether to visit a doctor or not.

Anne-Marie Hislop
Davenport, Iowa, July 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Selling reform is a problem for President Obama because he is not delivering what he is selling. If he were selling reform that increases access, manages costs and improves outcomes, he might not be having such a problem.

Americans are savvy consumers and can understand a sales pitch when they see it.

Andrea Economos
Scarsdale, N.Y., July 22, 2009